Stwa wrote: |
But, imagine if they did can multiplayer. The most immediate effect might be the silence from the ever shrinking circle of Multiplayer Chauvanists, that keep telling us how great multiplayer is. Its been discussed for IONS, but multiplayer is just too weeniefied. There is no drama, no death, and its too politcally correct. And everyone insists on "equal" force for each side. How lame is that? |
Stwa wrote: |
I'd just destroy the enemy and win that way. - TheImperatorKnight
NO, NO, NO. Only a NOOB does that! There is a company sized OPFOR unit scattered around in the hills. We need Modern Tactics. I used 9 artillery barrages at an average of 12 rounds per barrage. At $1,000 bucks per shell, thats about $108,000 dollars. Next I brought in some Apaches, for schmucks that got scared and stood up after the barrage. After the Apaches, there will be fixed wing strikes, with napalm. |
Bungarra wrote: |
Crikey.... lets just see what comes out |
russ109 wrote (View Post): |
Fantastic, I like Normandy!!! |
southern_land wrote (View Post): | ||
boo Rus, Boo!!!!! |
nikin wrote (View Post): |
The game died with the advent of CC LSA. |
Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post): |
I agree with the question of Ivan_Zaitze: Why? With the advent of LSA/PitF the German player, using the tactic of two units in the same battle area, can now incorporate into battle the tactical reason for the Tiger I, namely as a fire brigade able to run around the battlefield to appear in areas needing shoring up. |
Stwa wrote (View Post): |
Isn't that the same reason the gave for canning direct connect? |
Quote: |
TLD..The Present/future for CC Players;) |
Quote: |
TLD..The Present/future for CC Players;) |
TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post): | ||||
I love how everyone has their favourite CC games and is very opinionated as to which ones are the absolute best and which ones are the absolute worst. This is proof that the developers (past and present) have got things wrong. Each game in the series should improve on the last - but they don't - some get worse or stay the same or maybe get slightly better. So this means I can argue that PitF is good, whilst you can argue that it isn't. I can say CC2 is my favourite, whilst you stay loyal to CC5.
And an example of this -
Except this is a game I don't have, nor would I wish to have. Didn't like CC5 (unmodded obvs) so why would I buy the remake? Especially when Nikin says the LTD campaign is "stupid". And there you have it. All this proves is that instead of improving the series each step at a time, the developers have been making questionable changes which haven't necessarily improved the game at all, but have changed the feel of each game. So when I see -
... I just think, yep, we're never going to agree until they bring out a game that is clearly superior to anything that's come before it. Which is why I'm hopeful that the CC The Bloody First's new campaign system gets it right and is liked by all. But it clearly won't be |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT